5.  On 18 May 2002 Vitaliy Kholodkov, the applicants’ adult son, was found dead in his office with a gunshot wound to his head. Having examined the site and questioned potential witnesses, the Kuibyshevskiy District Police in Donetsk noted that some of his personal belongings, including two mobile telephones, were missing.
6.  On the same date the Kuibyshevskiy District Prosecutor’s Office in Donetsk instituted criminal proceedings into the incident.
7.  On 22 and 23 May 2002 the first and the second applicants respectively were admitted to the proceedings as injured parties.
8.  On a number of occasions the applicants complained to various authorities that the investigation was ineffective. They maintained, in particular, that their son had been the victim of a contract killing and insisted that several persons, including A. S., his former business partner, could have ordered his murder. They also identified that their son’s missing mobile telephones had been appropriated by certain S.O. and V.R. They demanded that these persons be arrested and questioned as the potential contract killers.
9.  On 20 December 2002 the District Prosecutor’s Office suspended the investigation referring to lack of any useful leads.
10.  On 21 April 2003 this decision was quashed and the investigation was resumed.
11.  On 4 August 2004 the Donetsk Regional Prosecutor’s Office developed an action plan to verify the applicants’ allegations concerning deficiencies in the investigation. The parties did not provide any documents concerning the implementation of that action plan.
12.  On 26 November 2004 an investigator with the Donetsk Regional Prosecutor’s Office suspended the proceedings referring to lack of any useful leads.
13.  On 12 March 2005 this decision was quashed by the supervising prosecutor and the proceedings were resumed.
14.  On 11 November 2005 V.R. (indicated by the applicants as a potential contract killer of their son) was placed on the wanted list as a potential suspect.
15.  On 17 June 2008 the case was transferred to the Donetsk Regional Police Department for further investigation.
16.  On 4 December 2008 the Donetsk Regional Police Department informed the first applicant, in response to his complaint concerning the protractions in the investigation, that they had identified a potential suspect. However, as his whereabouts were unknown, it was impossible to take any further actions in relation to the case.
17.  On 25 February 2010 the General Prosecutor’s Office responded to the applicants’ complaint concerning ineffectiveness in the conduct of the investigation by mentioning that two officers from the Kuibyshevskiy District Police Department had been under disciplinary investigation on account of their purported failure to take necessary measures for the collection of evidence in the initial phase of the proceedings.
18.  On 6 May 2010 the Donetsk Regional Prosecutors’ Office confirmed the above information. The parties did not inform the Court concerning the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings at issue.
19.  In September 2011 the police arrested V.R. and a certain O.B., who confessed of having beaten Vitaliy Kholodkov in his office on 17 May 2002. O.B. also divulged that he had fired a gun while struggling with Vitaliy Kholodkov.
20.  On 14 November 2011 the prosecutor’s office instituted criminal proceedings against A.S. (earlier indicated by the applicants as a potential organizer of Vitaliy Kholodkov’s killing) on suspicion of having contracted O.B. and V.R. to assault Vitaliy Kholodkov.
21.  On 12 December 2011 A.S., O.B. and V.R. were committed to stand criminal trial before the Kuibyshevskiy District Court in Donetsk.
22.  On 16 January 2013 the District Court convicted A.S. of having contracted O.B. and V.R. to assault Vitaliy Kholodkov. It also convicted O.B. of having assaulted and killed him and V.R. of having participated in the assault and having stolen the victim’s belongings.
23.  On 23 April 2013 this judgment was quashed on appeal by the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal and the case was remitted for a retrial.
24.  The parties have not informed the Court concerning further progress in the case.